High angle smoothing plane comparison

By Lyn J. Mangiameli

Well, this is finally it. What will follow in several parts is the high
angle smoothing plane investigation I have been working on for over a year.
Iíve done about all I can to make it thorough and objective, but no project
of this nature can be entirely either. Because of that, Iím going to try to
put forward as much information as possible, that way you will know why I
did things, how I did things, and what are the specific findings obtained.
If you want, you can use the techniques presented to conduct evaluations of
your own, and I intend to suggest some investigations that may be worth
doing in the future. By posting the background first, any questions as to
how things were done, or why things were done can be understood before the
plane rankings are presented.
Lyn.

Introduction

This review is different from my earlier plane reviews that have focused
on the design, ergonomics and quality of manufacture in addition to the
surface the plane could achieve. In this review, there were only two
primary objectives: To determine if high bedding angle planes, as a group,
tended to perform better than standard angle planes on difficult to plane
woods (i.e., should you obtain a High Angle plane if you work with
difficult hardwoods that are prone to tearout, fuzzing, etc.); and, more
specifically, to find which planes and/or plane configurations yielded the
best surface on particularly difficult to surface woods. Issues of comfort,
edge longevity and ease of use were not a focus of comparison, although
where a particular plane has been exceptional in some respect, I will
comment on it. Basically, this was an attempt to find which planes and/or
plane configurations could deal with those difficult wood surfaces that
nothing else seems to work for. Under such circumstances, it is assumed
that one is willing to give up comfort and/or edge retention, in the quest
to achieve the best possible surface.

Planes

The planes used were from seven different manufacturers, with a total
of eleven planes used in the comparison. Often, the planes represented
the best of their kind and style (i.e. Stephen Thomas for the English
Infill; Clark & Williams for the traditional wood smoother, Lie-Nielsen
& Lee Valley for the Bailey/Bedrock style, ECE/Primus for the
Continental style wood smoother, Mujingfang for Taiwanese style, and
Knight Japanese Infill as a Japanese/English hybrid). A pure Japanese
style plane was about the only style omitted. Clifton planes were not
included as they do not offer a high bedding angle plane, nor recommend
back bevels. HNT Gordon was not included as their smoother is very similar
to the Mujingfang HA. Other potentially desirable planes like a Holtey and
other modern English style infills were not available for loan (at least
based on requests posted to BP and rec.woodworking) or were beyond my
desire or resources to purchase. The planes included were all used in a
configuration recommended and /or supplied by the manufacturer. The
specific planes, by manufacturer were:

I own nine of the eleven planes, having purchased four of them (both
Knight smoothers, the Lie-Nielsen #4.5 and the ECE/Primus, Improved),
having received four of them in exchange for feedback (Lee Valley #4.5
& Low Angle Smoother & both Mujingfang planes), and one plane
(a cosmetic second Lee Valley #4.5) was donated for this comparison.
Two planes were loaned to me for this comparison; the Clark &
Williams was obtained from a private owner and Badger Pond regular,
and the Stephen Thomas Infill came directly from Mr. Thomas.
Interestingly, the two models of Mujingfang planes will not be available
from the company I received them from (one will be carried in a slightly
different configuration, the other will not be carried), but both will
be available through Woodcraft late this Summer or in the early Fall.

Blade width ranged from 1.875" to 2.375", blade thickness
ranged from 0.114" to over 0.25", with over half the planes
having a blade thickness of 1.25". Several of the planes had tapering
blades, but the minimum thickness was 0.114" even on the tapered
blades. Blade styles included laminated steel (e.g., Knight Japanese Blade
Infill), carbon steel (e.g., Knight small finish/smoother), A2 steel
(e.g., Lee Valley, Lie-Nielsen and Stephen Thomas), and alloys that were
not and could not be identified (Primus, Mujingfang). As most know, the
Lie-Nielsen planes have long been available with high quality carbon steel
blades, but these have recently been replaced by A2 steel blades. In an
earlier series of comparisons, the two blades have performed identically
when freshly honed. However, since many of the planes in this comparison
used A2 blades, and since the A2 blade is the current configuration, only
the Lie-Nielsen A2 blade was used in this comparison.

Woods

12 different species of wood were selected, with at least two samples
obtained of each wood. A total of 26 samples were used in the comparisons,
as White Oak was represented twice, once with straight grain, and once
with curly figure. I tried but excluded woods like Snakewood that were
too abusive to blades, but otherwise attempted to select woods that have
proven difficult to plane to a good surface with a high quality, but
standard angle plane. Woods were:

Blackwood Acacia

Bloodwood

Bubinga

Cocobolo

Ebony

Ipè

Lacewood

Lignum Vitae

Fiddleback Maple

White Oak (straight grain & curly grain)

Padauk

Purple Heart

The woods were donated by Steve Knight (a very generous supply of
exotics) or came from my private stock (most purchased from Southern
Lumber in San Jose); Lee Valley helped me to obtain a couple of woods
I had difficulty acquiring on my own.

Methodology

All tasks and ratings involved with this comparison were performed by
the investigator alone (i.e., me). All planes were allowed several weeks
to acclimatize to the temperature and humidity of my shop. All plane
soles were checked for flatness with a Bridge City Tools straightedge,
and then lapped flat if necessary using "scary sharp"
techniques on a long piece of glass. All plane blades had both their
faces and backs flattened (as needed) and backs were polished by hand
using waterstones; bevels were made flat and sharpened to 0.5 micron on
my Lee Valley Power Sharpening System. The consistency and quality of
the edge was checked each time with a 5X magnifier.

The wood samples were milled rectangularly, usually with a 1.5 to 1.75
inches wide face, so that all planes would see the same width of surface
to be cut, the wood was then planed smooth with a freshly sharpened Lee
Valley #4.5 with standard pitch and bevel angle. Sufficient cuts were made
to insure that adjustment was such as to produce optimal performance from
the plane. This became the benchmark condition with the Lee Valley #4.5 at
45° used to establish the surface condition of each wood sample.

Then one of the comparison planes followed to see if any difference
could be discerned. Sufficient cuts were made to insure the best adjusted
performance was achieved from the plane. If adjustment required more than
six strokes, the blade was pulled and re-honed, then adjustment proceeded
again. No evaluation cuts were made with a blade that had more than six
prior adjustment cuts. Notes were taken on a separate rating sheet for
each wood sample. Two photos of each surface were shot (one of the area
of maximal "damage" and one represented the larger view of the
sample) and coded so that the plane was not readily identifiable.

The Lee Valley #4.5 blade would then be re-honed at 0.5 and used to
renew/return the wood surface to the Lee Valley #4.5 level, then another
plane was tried with the same follow up steps. This was repeated over and
over until all the planes had been tried on a given sample of wood. If
planes were close in performance, back to back comparisons were made to
refine awareness of their differences. Then the process was repeated for
another species of wood. This continued until each plane had been compared
on a sample of each wood species. Then the entire process was repeated
using a second sample of each wood. Planes were selected in a quasi-random
order for each wood species (that means I tried to use different orders of
planes for each sample, but random selection was not guaranteed).

Ratings of the planes were based on several criteria, which for a given
wood might include some combination of surface smoothness (both visual and
tactile), depth of tear out, amount of tearout, clarity of the wood
surface, etc. There were no fixed criteria, as different woods displayed
different characteristics and were handled differently by the planes. For
example, some woods displayed a lot of tearout, but the clarity of the
remainder of the wood was consistently very good; while another wood may
have shown no obvious tear out, but there were several differences in how
smooth the wood felt to the hand.

A point was awarded for each discernible improvement in overall
performance. For some woods, there were several discernible levels of
performance (i.e., the surface left by plane B was better than the surface
left by plane A, and the surface left by plane C was better than that
provided by plane B.) Points were awarded to each plane according to how
many discernible steps in performance it represented relative to the
benchmark Lee Valley #4.5. Thus, for a very difficult wood, like cocobolo,
the plane that performed the best was able to achieve a score of 5 on one
sample, representing that five different levels of performance were
discernible between the surface left by this plane and the benchmark
plane while using the full range of planes on this wood. In contrast,
on a few woods, no discernible differences were detectable between any
of the blades, thus all planes were rated as ď0Ē relative to the
benchmark performance.

It is important to understand that these ratings represent, in the
statistical sense, an interval scale. Though there was an arbitrary
"0" point (the benchmark planeís performance), the "0"
did not represent poor performance and the maximum score did not represent
a "perfect" surface. There were some woods on which an
essentially perfect surface was achieved by the benchmark plane (which
isnít too surprising since it has been very favorably compared to some of
the best of standard angle planes), and even the highest rated plane may
not have achieved flawless performance on other woods. The intervals were
determined by the overall group of planesí variation in performance,
relative to the benchmark plane, and did not represent any externally
established structure. Thus, the intervals do not represent equal steps
(the steps ultimately being determined by the performance of the planes),
but rather represent rankings, in which ties can occur among two or more
planes.

After all the samples had been planed, the scores for a given plane on
both samples of a wood were entered into a statistical database (SPSS)
and averaged. The developed photos for a given wood (both samples) were
then all laid out on a table and again ordered according to overall
discernible differences. Unfortunately, the photos did not allow for as
fine a discrimination as did the direct evaluations which involved the
ability to feel the surfaces and more easily consider a flawed area in
the context of the overall surface. It was decided after starting the
evaluations, but before analyzing the data, that if the rankings
differed by more than one level of placement, between photos and direct
observations, then one half the difference in ranking would be added
(which might be a positive or negative score) to the rankings achieved
through direct observation. Fortunately, these complications were avoided
in that the final blind ranking of the photos was never in conflict with
the direct observations, though sometimes fewer categories of difference
were discernible through sole use of the photographs.

Results

First, results will be listed by overall ratings for each plane (an
obvious order by bedding angle and style becomes apparent). If you want
just the overview, you can stop there. Then planes will be ranked
according to the number of their first and second place finishes
(including ties). Finally, each planeís rating will be given for each
wood. This lets you see which planes did best on a given wood and also
gives you a good idea of how much variation in plane performance was
present for a specific wood. You can consider planes and bedding angles
with reference to the woods you most often use, or you can gain an idea
of what planes tend to always do a good job over your own personal group
of woods.

Again keep in mind that the Lee Valley #4.5 standard angle smoother is
the benchmark and thus always presents with a score of zero. Bedding
angles are as close as I was able to measure on the planes used, and may
or may not agree with the manufacturerís specifications.

Rankings based on total rating points accrued over all woods

Plane

Angle

Score

Lee Valley Low Angle

32°

-4.0

Mujingfang Ebony

40°

-0.5

Lee Valley #4.5

45°

0.0

Knight Finish

47°

4.0

ECE/Primus Imp.

50°

5.5

Lie-Nielsen #4.5 HA frog

50°

6.0

Clark &Williams Coffin

55°

6.0

LV #4.5 back bev.

60°

8.5

Mujingfang Rosewood HA

62.5°

13.5

Knight Japanese Infill

47.5°

13.5

Stephen Thomas Infill

47.5°

19.5

Ranking based in order of number of 1st and/or 2nd place finishes
(These rankings do not include the three woods on which all planes produced
the same level of surface. Multiple ties may have occurred on a given wood.)

Plane

Angle

1st places

2nd places

Lee Valley #4.5

45°

0

0

Mujingfang Ebony

40°

0

1

Lee Valley Low Angle

32°

0

2

ECE/Primus

50°

0

2

Lee Valley #4.5 back bevel

60°

0

4

Lie-Nielsen #4.5 HA frog

50°

1

1

Knight Finish Smoother

47°

1

2

Clark & Williams Coffin

55°

1

3

Mujingfang Rosewood HA

62.5°

2

3

Knight Japanese Infill

47.5°

4

2

Stephen Thomas Infill

47.5°

7

2

The following are the plane ratings on each of the wood samples. The
ratings are based on the average score from two samples of each wood.
Again, each point represents one discernible level of difference
between at least two planes.

Blackwood Acacia
(One of the most difficult woods; no plane produced a perfect surface.)

Plane

Angle

Score

Lee Valley Low Angle

32°

-2.0

Clark & Williams Coffin

55°

-1.0

ECE/Primus

50°

-1.0

Knight Finish

47°

-1.0

Mujingfang Ebony

40°

-1.0

Lee Valley # 4.5

45°

0.0

Lie-Nielsen #4.5

50°

0.0

Knight J. Infill

47.5°

1.0

Stephen Thomas Infill

47.5°

1.0

Lee Valley #4.5 back bevel

60°

2.0

Mujingfang Rosewood HA

62.5°

3.0

Bloodwood
(all planes produced an excellent and indistinguishable surface).

Cocobolo
(Another of the most difficult woods; no plane produced a perfect surface.)

Plane

Angle

Score

Lee Valley Low Angle

32°

-1.0

Lee Valley # 4.5

45°

0.0

Mujingfang Ebony

40°

1.0

Knight Finish

47°

2.0

Knight J. Infill

47.5°

2.0

Lee Valley #4.5 back bevel

60°

2.0

Lie-Nielsen #4.5

50°

2.0

ECE/Primus

50°

3.0

Clark & Williams Coffin

55°

3.5

Mujingfang Rosewood HA

62.5°

4.5

Stephen Thomas Infill

47.5°

4.5

Ebony
(Best planes provided a good surface.)

Plane

Angle

Score

Lee Valley # 4.5

45°

0.0

Mujingfang Ebony

40°

0.0

ECE/Primus

50°

0.5

Knight Finish

47°

0.5

Lee Valley Low Angle

32°

0.5

Lee Valley #4.5 back bevel

60°

0.5

Lie-Nielsen #4.5

50°

0.5

Clark & Williams Coffin

55°

1.0

Mujingfang Rosewood HA

62.5°

1.0

Knight J. Infill

47.5°

1.5

Stephen Thomas Infill

47.5°

1.5

Ipè
(All planes produced an excellent and indistinguishable surface.)

Lacewood
(Best planes produced an adequate surface.)

Plane

Angle

Score

Clark & Williams Coffin

55°

0.0

Knight J. Infill

47.5°

0.0

Lee Valley # 4.5

45°

0.0

Mujingfang Ebony

40°

0.0

Mujingfang Rosewood HA

62.5°

0.0

ECE/Primus

50°

0.5

Lee Valley Low Angle

32°

0.5

Lee Valley #4.5 back bevel

60°

0.5

Knight Finish

47°

1.0

Lie-Nielsen #4.5

50°

1.0

Stephen Thomas Infill

47.5°

1.0

Lignum Vitae
(Best planes produced an excellent surface.)

Plane

Angle

Score

Mujingfang Ebony

40°

-1.0

Lee Valley Low Angle

32°

-1.0

Clark & Williams Coffin

55°

0.0

Lee Valley # 4.5

45°

0.0

ECE/Primus

50°

1.0

Mujingfang Rosewood HA

62.5°

1.0

Lie-Nielsen #4.5

50°

1.5

Knight Finish

47°

2.0

Knight J. Infill

47.5°

2.0

Lee Valley #4.5 back bevel

60°

2.0

Stephen Thomas Infill

47.5°

4.0

Fiddleback Maple
(All surfaces were good, but best were exquisite.)

Plane

Angle

Score

Clark & Williams Coffin

55°

0.0

Lee Valley # 4.5

45°

0.0

Lie-Nielsen #4.5

50°

0.5

ECE/Primus

50°

1.0

Knight Finish

47°

1.0

Lee Valley Low Angle

32°

1.0

Lee Valley #4.5 back bevel

60°

1.0

Mujingfang Ebony

40°

2.0

Mujingfang Rosewood HA

62.5°

2.0

Stephen Thomas Infill

47.5°

2.0

Knight J. Infill

47.5°

3.0

Curly Oak
(All surfaces were good to very good.)

Plane

Angle

Score

Clark & Williams Coffin

55°

0.0

ECE/Primus

50°

0.0

Knight J. Infill

47.5°

0.0

Lee Valley Low Angle

32°

0.0

Lee Valley # 4.5

45°

0.0

Mujingfang Ebony

40°

0.0

Knight Finish

47°

0.5

Lee Valley #4.5 back bevel

60°

0.5

Lie-Nielsen #4.5

50°

0.5

Mujingfang Rosewood HA

62.5°

0.5

Stephen Thomas Infill

47.5°

1.0

Straight Grain Oak
(All planes produced a very good surface.)

Padauk
(All surfaces were good to excellent.)

Plane

Angle

Score

ECE/Primus

50°

0.0

Knight Finish

47°

0.0

Lee Valley # 4.5

45°

0.0

Lee Valley #4.5 back bevel

60°

0.5

Lie-Nielsen #4.5

50°

0.5

Mujingfang Ebony

40°

0.5

Mujingfang Rosewood HA

62.5°

0.5

Stephen Thomas Infill

47.5°

0.5

Clark & Williams Coffin

55°

1.0

Lee Valley Low Angle

32°

1.0

Knight J. Infill

47.5°

1.5

Purpleheart
(Poor to very good surfaces.)

Plane

Angle

Score

Lee Valley Low Angle

32°

-2.0

Mujingfang Ebony

40°

-1.0

Knight Finish

47°

0.0

Lee Valley # 4.5

45°

0.0

Mujingfang Rosewood HA

62.5°

0.0

Lee Valley #4.5 back bevel

60°

0.5

Lie-Nielsen #4.5

50°

0.5

Clark & Williams Coffin

55°

1.5

ECE/Primus

50°

1.5

Knight J. Infill

47.5°

2.0

Stephen Thomas Infill

47.5°

2.0

Discussion

I wrote in the introduction, and I think it is good to reiterate it now:

In this review, there were only two primary objectives:
To determine if high angle planes, as a group, tended to perform better
than standard angle planes on difficult to plane woods (i.e., should you
obtain a High Angle plane if you work with difficult hardwoods that are
prone to tearout, fuzzing, etc.); and, more specifically, to find which
planes and/or plane configurations yielded the best surface on a range
of particularly difficult to surface woods.

It is important to keep in mind that the results from this investigation
do not necessarily, or even likely, represent the performance of planes on
less dense and commonly used woods such as walnut, mahogany, cherry and
poplar. It is also good to keep in mind that the findings do not so much
represent a comparison of manufacturers, as they are a comparison of plane
styles and configurations; the difference in performance between the Lee
Valley #4.5 with an effective cutting angle of 45 degrees and the same
plane with an effective cutting angle of 60 degrees is a good example.

Plane characteristics vs quality of surface achieved

There were only two consistent findings associated with good performance
across the range of woods: that infill style planes performed better than
any other style; and for non infill planes, performance was consistently
better as effective cutting angle (bedding angle plus back bevel angle,
if any) increased. These findings are obvious upon casual comparison of
effective cutting angle and total performance points, and, with respect
to effective cutting angle, is confirmed by elementary non-parametric
correlational analysis (Spearman Correlation Coefficients). Taken as a
total group of all eleven planes, effective cutting angle correlates at
the 0.697 level (a perfect correlation would be 1.0), a strong
correlation, and is found to be significant at the 0.017 level (fewer
than 2 times in a hundred could such a finding occur by chance). The
finding is extremely strong if we remove the two infill planes from
consideration. For the remaining nine planes effective cutting angle and
total performance points is correlated at the 0.9874 performance level,
with a significance of 0.000 (in words, less than one time in 1000 would
this occur by chance).

Other plane characteristics, such as total weight or blade thickness
failed to achieve a significant correlation, with or without the inclusion
of the infill planes. While the top performing plane was the heaviest (the
Stephen Thomas infill), for those tied for second place in the category of
total performance points, one ranked 5th from the top and the other was
two places below that. Put another way, at 760 grams, the Mujingfang
Rosewood HA plane that tied for second in total points is little more than
one third the weight of the top ranged plane, and only a little more than
half the weight of the plane it tied with for second place. So in general,
on these dense difficult woods, weight doesnít correlate with improved
performance, but angle does. This does not mean that weight does not
matter, but likely that performance is related to some function of both
angle and weight (as is suggested by the relatively low angle but high
weight infill rankings).

Blade thickness was equally un-associated with plane performance.
Though this goes against some conventional wisdom, it does not surprise
me that much. All of these blades were bedded more fully than some typical
Bailey style planes. With each plane, the blade support extended at least
all the way down to the top of the bevel, and in the case of the Lee
Valley Low Angle plane, to just short of the blade edge. The thinner the
blade, the shorter the bevel width, thus the closer the bedding came to
the blade edge. With a blade bedded near to its edge, I personally doubt
that blade thickness is that much of a factor, once a certain basic
thickness is achieved, which in this investigation would suggest anything
around 1/8th inch is sufficient. More likely, thicker blades are most
important on Bailey style planes where when the frog is advanced and
bedding ends well above the blade edge.

None of these planes had what has traditionally been considered a thin
blade. The thinnest blade comes in at just slightly under 1/8th inch,
most were at 1/8th inch, and only one blade was considerably thicker
than the others (the Knight Finish/Smoothing plane at 1/4 inch). Four
planes had blades that were tapered, so the thickness at the top of the
bevel was used as the measuring point for thickness, this resulted in
measuring the thickest blade section for three of the planes (i.e.,
those blades thinnest at their top) and one of the thinnest sections
for one plane (the Japanese blade that tapered down from a thick top).

The presence or absence of a chip breaker, by itself, seemed to have
no influence on plane performance with these woods. Half the planes
used one, half the planes didnít. Of the high rated infills, one used
a chip breaker, one didnít. Particularly telling, of course, is that
the Lee Valley #4.5 ranked very differently depending upon the effective
cutting angle used, but in both cases, the same chipbreaker was employed.
Perhaps, but this is only unsupported speculation, at these higher angles
a tightly coupled chip breaker (such as is employed on the ECE/Primus
which is coupled to the blade with two screws) is more important for its
ability to reinforce a thinner blade, than for it any chip breaking
performance per se.

Half the planes had a wood sole, half the planes had a metal sole.
No association was found between sole material and surface finish on
the woods planed. While two of the three top ranking planes had metal
soles, so did two of the three lowest ranking planes. Sole material
did make a difference with regards to usage characteristics, but not
to the quality of finish obtained. It is worth noting here, that all
plane soles, whether wood or metal were waxed with Renaissance
microcrystalline wax.

Blade width was basically eliminated as a characteristic of the
planesí performance, as all wood samples were made no wider than the
narrowest blade. However, this does not mean that blade width might
not play some significant role on tasks that involve wider boards
or panels.

Functional characteristics vs quality of surface achieved

Shaving thickness itself was not in a 1:1 relationship with quality
of surface, and not all planes were able to make equally fine
continuous shavings. Some planes took very fine even shavings and
provided an excellent surface (most commonly the Stephen Thomas,
Knight Japanese Blade Infill and the Mujingfang High Angle), but
some planes producing fine shavings left a rather mediocre surface
while other planes produced much thicker shavings but left a
better surface.

User variable plane characteristics, such as blade extension, mouth
width (on those planes where this could be adjusted), and cap iron/wedge
tension were not consistent between planes, woods, or even individual
samples of the woods. Each were and needed to be adjusted to obtain the
best performance for the planing task at hand, and no overall settings
appeared to apply for any of the planes.

User qualities

User qualities break down primarily into ease and refinement of
adjustment, the ability to move the plane across the wood, and
general matters of fit and comfort.

Adjustment

This issue is surely biased by my limited experience with wood planes.
I have eight wood planes that do not have mechanical adjusters (and four
that do), and have used this style for many years, but I am clearly not
a master of wood plane adjustment. With that caveat made clear up front,
Iím going to discuss one of the most important distinctions between
planes, as I experienced it, other than the surface finish they
achieved.

The ability to achieve fine and consistent changes in planing
performance as a result of changes in blade extension and alignment is
what I call adjustment control (a stupid name, just the best I came up
with). To me, this is more than just a reflection of the refinement and
precision of adjustment mechanisms, but also includes the ability of the
plane to translate these changes in blade position into a change in
cutting performance. The Stephen Thomas plane was simply a delight to
adjust and repeatedly demonstrated the highest levels of adjustment
control. It simply allowed me to make very fine adjustments in meaningful
blade extension that translated into distinguishable changes in
differences in the characteristics of the shaving made and/or surface
revealed. No other plane came even close. No other plane could I take to
a new wood with a freshly installed blade and so quickly achieve the
optimal setting for the shaving or surface I wished to achieve.
Consistent with my definition of adjustment control, it allowed for
easily achievable very fine settings that resulted in distinguishable
and meaningful changes in plane performance. At risk of repeating myself,
this plane was able not only to make fine changes in blade position,
but respond to those changes. It has spoiled me for all other planes,
on this characteristic alone.

Interestingly, the plane that ranked second in this respect was the
Lie-Nielsen #4.5. It was notable superior to the other planes. Even
though the Lee Valley #4.5, in my experience, has the better adjuster,
and I find it slightly more precise when comparing the two planes in
their standard angle configuration, it did not show as great a degree
of functional control over the planeís cutting as did the Lie-Nielsen.
Perhaps the angle and back bevel has something to do with this, but
that is a consideration I have absolutely no foundation for. Regardless,
the Lie-Nielsen #4.5 with its HA frog, was meaningfully (at least to me)
superior to all planes but the Stephen Thomas.

Roughly tieing for third place was the ECE/Primus, the Lee Valley #4.5
in both its configurations, and the Mujingfang High Angle. These planes
I could be happy with, had I not experienced the Stephen Thomas.

The remaining planes were acceptable except for one. The
disappointment was the Knight Japanese Infill. I found it a huge hassle
to adjust and it never provided the sense of control that was offered by
the Stephen Thomas, the Lie-Nielsen or even the Mujingfang High Angle
plane and the Primus. When finally set perfectly, the Knight Infill
performed excellently, as the total points figures show, but I just
hated having to remove the iron as I knew it was going to be a struggle
to properly adjust it again. Part of my trouble adjusting this plane is
likely explained by a certain lack of skill adjusting by hammer, but I
suspect the combination of the tapered Japanese blade and the very tight
fixed mouth also contributed to the frustrations I encountered with this
blade. Iím sure in normal use, Iíd use this plane sparingly, just so I
didnít have to sharpen and readjust the blade again, but it sure works
well when set correctly.

Movement across the wood

Two factors are involved here, but I shall consider them concurrently.
The first factor is the ability to plane right through a resistive
surface, such as the densest woods or woods with notably varying
density. The second factor relates to the ability to change the direction
of the plane to accommodate shifting grain. In this case two planes stood
out, one for each of the factors.

Again, the Stephen Thomas plane was just wonderful in its ability to
seemingly effortlessly maintain the momentum of the planing stroke
throughout its entire length. Surely this is largely related to it being
the heaviest plane, but likely other factors, such as control over blade
extension, ergonomic factors such as grip shape and placement, and
effective cutting angle all contributed to its ease of movement through
the wood. Stephen's plane is over six pounds. I loved the weight, but
I'm not sure everyone would be very happy with it. I really do plane a
lot, and have the associated task specific musculature. I'm not sure
someone else would handle the Stephen Thomas or some of the other HA
planes in the same way or with the same control as I do, but if the
unsupported weight of a plane is not an issue, the Stephen Thomas makes
use of its weight and other characteristics very successfully when making
cuts through the denser woods.

Second in this regards were the two metal planes followed by the Knight
Japanese Ironed Infill. Again weight seemed to be the primary underlying
factor, though the former two planes also use a more ďWesternĒ style grip,
as does the Stephen Thomas. Also quite acceptable was the Mujingfang HA,
which is a plane that felt and performed like a plane much heavier than
it really is. I should note that I used this plane without its optional
crossbar that will allow pulling and a somewhat different sort of pushing
grip.

The Primus plane, the C&W and the Knight Finish plane often seemed to
lack the authority to continue with cuts along the length of a dense wood
such as purpleheart or cocobolo. As a result, they required greater
physical effort to move through the wood stroke, and became more difficult
to control as the activity of the larger muscles predominated over the
more precise smaller directional control muscles.

A point worth bringing up here, although it might well be considered
with respect to several other topics, is blade width. Clearly as angle
goes up, resistance increases for a given blade width. Obviously, the
wider the plane blade, the higher the resistance. Ideally, a lighter
plane with a higher angle, would use a narrower blade, while a heavier
plane might more easily allow for a higher, more resistive, angle. I
canít say that this idea is supported by either the data on quality of
surface achieved, nor by my own subjective experience using the planes.
Perhaps that is because manufacturers have intended that as blade width
increases, so also does the overall plane weight. Still, one wonders about
the trend of Lie-Nielsen to make its widest planes available with high
angle frogs, and what might be the relative performance of a heavy plane
but with a narrower blade used at high angle. A future study might involve
back bevels applied to a Lie-Nielsen Bronze #4 compared to an iron
Lie-Nielsen#4.5 with similar back bevels.

The other factor is one of ability to manipulate the plane to change
directions to account for changing grain and other wood variations. In
this area, as was also revealed in last yearís review of the Lee Valley
#4.5, the ECE/Primus Improved Smoothing Plane stands alone. There is
something about the slippery Lignum Vitae sole, the Continental handle
arrangement, and perhaps some other unidentified characteristic that
allows the Primus to stand unchallenged in this respect. Particularly
on cocobolo, where some synergistic interaction takes place with this
plane, the ECE/Primus just effortlessly skims across the surface,
cutting a fine shaving and instantly responding to the lightest muscular
input to change direction or force. On this particular wood, it is like
going from a Stephen Thomas Porshe Turbo to a Primus Formula One car.

Ergonomics

Iíve touched on this previously, but it is worthy to return to as a
topic of its own. In this investigation, I placed all other considerations
secondary to sheer surface finish for the specialized high angle
"super smoother". Still, all other things being equal, it is
nice to have a plane that is comfortable for extended use. This is of
course a highly personalized consideration, and one that is totally
subjective. For me, two planes stood out, though the two planes that
ranked the highest for me couldnít be more different: the Stephen Thomas
and the ECE/Primus. The Stephen Thomas took a while to get used to, with
its smaller enclosed grip, but once I adjusted to the enclosed grip, it
soon became one of my favorites.

The ECE/Primus, with its Continental front horn and rounded rear notch
was always a pleasure to hold, and allowed rapid changes in direction
without having to contort oneís hands or wrists. I have always found
the ECE/Primus, with its unusual (in North America) grip, to be a
particularly refreshing break from long planing sessions with a Bailey
style plane.

The Mujingfang High Angle plane also was comfortable. Its Taiwanese
style "roofed" front body and cross bar allow for several
comfortable gripping positions.

The Bailey style grips found on the Lie-Nielsen and Lee Valley planes
have not become the Western standard without reason. I like the Lee
Valley rear tote slightly better, it having a slightly different angle
and length than the more traditional tote found on the Lie-Nielsen, but
both are good for both brief and extended use.

The Clark &Williams was new to me, and I was impressed with how readily
this small, coffin style of plane felt right in my hand. I wish it had
more mass, but I suspect one could comfortably use this plane for
extended periods of time.

The Knight planes fall at the bottom of my list. His Finish/Smoothing
plane is too blocky for comfort and makes no accommodation for grip. It
is acceptable for shorter periods of planing, but became less comfortable
to use the longer a planing session went on.

The Knight Japanese Blade Infill, is one of the most beautiful planes
to view, but one of the least practical to use for extended periods.
The grips are very smooth and fairly comfortable when the plane is riding
on the surface of the wood, but this plane is fairly heavy and there is
no accommodation made for lifting the plane from the wood. The shape of
the Bailey style grips are the best for lifting a heavy plane, allowing
it to be easily gripped both forward and aft. The English infill style
is second, with the enclosed tote offering at least a one handed grip.
But the heavy Knight Japanese Blade Infill is a disaster, requiring a
tight pincher grip to be used to pick up the plane after every stroke.
The style that was generally acceptable for a light wooden plane,
becomes a recipe for repetitive stress injuries when applied to such a
heavy plane. The good news is that Steve is aware of this and is quite
actively researching and modifying his planes to achieve better gripping
shapes.

Limitations of this investigation

Try as one might, an investigation such as this is fraught with error
variance (factors unrelated to the focus of study). There is so much
difference in wood, settings and tuning, tuning abilities between people,
style of use, etc., it makes such a investigation almost futile.

For one, it would be simply overwhelming, both in expense and time,
to consider all the many suitable planes and the various configurations
available to the woodworker. For example, it would have been desirable
to have included one or more true English style infills (Norris, Spiers,
Preston, etc) as well as their more modern replicas. It would have also
been useful to examine at least several planes able to support multiple
back bevels, lets say an ECE/Primus, Lee Valley and Lie-Nielsen with
back bevels at 50, 55, 60, and 65 degrees.

There are advantages in maintaining consistency by using one rater,
but it would have been a stronger study if it had been possible to use
three raters using all the planes on all the woods.

There is such difference between samples of a given wood, not to
mention differences between woods, that all rankings must be considered
only crude approximations to what will likely be oneís own experience.
I tried to minimize this problem somewhat by basing ratings always on
at least two samples of a given wood, but this should not be considered
sufficient. To be truly valid, something more like eight samples of each
wood would need to be evaluated. A good example of why this is true can
be found by comparing the performance of planes used in this investigation
with those that were also used in my previous Lee Valley #4.5 review
which included comparisons to the Lie-Nielsen #4, Lie-Nielsen #4.5,
Lie-Nielsen Low Angle and ECE/Primus Improved Smoothing planes. Now
granted, I didnít employ such elaborate methodology in that earlier
review, but it is illustrative to compare the following words from the
previous review to the present findings:

Purpleheart. L-N LA did best here, followed by L-N4.5 and
V4.5. ECE/Primus prone to chatter on this wood. Not a hint of chatter
from the V4.5 and virtually as good from the L-N4.5.

In contrast, in this investigation, the Lee Valley Low Angle plane
performed quite poorly on Purpleheart while the ECE/Primus achieved a
fairly good surface. I suspect the differences between then and now is
not the difference between the Lee Valley and Lie-Nielsen low angle
planes, but likely is the result of different samples of wood.

Woods, and the individual sample of wood before one, is the primary
arbiter of what plane will perform best at a given time!

Conclusions

Again, I want to reiterate, there were no ďbadĒ planes in this
investigation. Everyone of these planes is well made, and works very
well indeed on some woods and for some purposes. However, not all of
these planes were as suitable to application on the dense, difficult,
sometimes heavily figured woods deliberately selected for this
investigation.

So, was there a "best" plane? In my mind there certainly
was. The Stephen Thomas infill planed at a superior level more
consistently than any other plane. Its ability to do that at a
relatively modest effective cutting angle implies that it will handle
a wider variety of woods than the higher angle planes. It felt good,
it was easy to adjust, it breezed through the densest woods, it made
some of the finest and most even of shavings; simply, it was just
wonderful to use and a true asset as a tool to quickly achieve the
finest surface planing can accomplish. Alas, wonderful comes at a very
high price, one that exceeds all the other planes in the investigation
combined, and for more reasons than price alone, it will be a plane of
very limited availability. If you have the money for it, though, it
wonít disappoint and will likely even save a professional hand tool
user money in the long run.

Was there a best value? I think so. A Lee Valley #4.5 with an extra
blade or two for back bevels is by far the best value in my opinion,
and is also one of the most versatile of planes (along with a
Lie-Nielsen with a 45 degree frog). For roughly $200 (including an
extra blade), you can have a level of performance I suspect can be
brought to only a little short of the best. Using back bevels, I
expect the Lie-Nielsen #4.5 will offer much the same performance,
but at about twice the price (again, including an extra blade for
back beveling). Still, not a bad price for such a versatile plane.

Another plane strongly in the running is the ECE/Primus Improved
Smoothing Plane, with its adjustable mouth, it will likely respond
equally well to back bevels, and at a price comparable to the Lee
Valley.

For me, the lessons most safely drawn from this investigation (and
for the reasons I express above, all speculation should be done very
cautiously) is that higher blade angles are generally useful for denser
woods, that back bevels work and are an inexpensive way to achieve a
range of effective cutting angles, and that a plane with an adjustable
mouth is almost essential to exploit the use of a back beveled blade.
It appears also, that there is something about the infill design, that
allows such planes to perform over a wide range of wood types, with but
only a modest increase beyond Standard pitch.

There is a saying in medicine to "treat the patient, not the
machine", (that is, pay attention to whether the patient is
breathing, not just whether the machine is saying the patient is
breathing, or not). I think a similar saying is a good way to end here,
"Use the plane that you find works best for the wood before you,
not the plane any review or investigation has suggested was the best
plane for their woods".

Iím sure Iíve failed to address some important points, and simply
donít have the knowledge or wisdom to respond to others. Iíll try to
answer the ones I can in response to questions appearing on Badger
Pond, and will revise and update this complete report when there is
something valuable to include. Now, on to some investigations of super
high angle planes (over 60 degrees) and how all this relates to scraper
planes. Just donít expect the results for a while. :-)